TOPIC

MODULE IV:

CAPACITY TO CONTRACT

TODAYS TOPIC

 RATIFICATION OF THE MINOR’S AGREEMENT

 RATIFICATION DONE ON MINOR’S BEHALF
 NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST A MINOR

CASES REFERRED:

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose.1

Vaikuntarama Pillai v Authimoolam Chettair

Suraj Nair v. Sukhu Aheer

Kundan Bibi v Sree Narayan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RATIFICATION OF THE MINOR’S AGREEMENT

Ratification on attaining majority is not permitted .

An agreement with the minor is completely void. A minor cannot ratify the agreement
even on attaining majority, because a void agreement cannot be ratified. A person who
is not competent, an act cannot give it validity by ratifying.

In the case of Suraj Nair v. Sukhu Aheer, a person borrowed money during his
minority and then made a fresh promise, after attaining majority, to pay that sum plus
the interest thereon. It was held by the Allahabad High Court that the consideration
received by a person during his minority could not be called consideration, and there
was no question of that consideration being considered valid for a fresh promise.

1
 ILR (1903) 30 Cal 539: 30 IA 114 (PC)
Similarly, in the case of Kundan Bibi v Sree Narayan, it was held that if a person has
received a part of the benefit during the minority and a part after attaining majority, a
promise by him to pay for both if made after attaining majority, is with valid reason and
enforceable.

RATIFICATION DONE ON MINOR’S BEHALF

Under some circumstances, a guardian of a minor could enter into a valid

contract on behalf of the minor. Such an agreement, which the guardian
enters into for the advantage of the minor, could also be enforced by the
minor. However, guardians must not bind a minor by a contract for buying
immovable property. However, a contract entered into through a certified
guardian of a minor, appointed by the Court, with authorization from the
Court for the sale of a minor’s property could be enforced.

A minor’s contract is void and it is immaterial whether father signs on behalf of minor
or gives an undertaking that the minor would act or perform the contract. The Privy
Council held that guardian cannot contract on behalf of minor. However, this rule was
subsequently modified by the Privy Council in Srikakulam Subramanyam v.
KurraSubba Rao.2 The Privy council entertained no doubt that it was within the powers
of the mother of a minor as a guardian to enter into a contract of sale for the purpose of
discharging his father’s debts. Thus, if the court finds that the contract has been entered
into for the benefit of the minor, it would be declared valid.

When a guardian enters into a contract on behalf of a minor, the validity of the contract
depends on whether the guardian is acting within the scope of his legal powers or not.
The Privy Council, in the case of Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin,3 held that the
guardian’s contract can neither be enforced against the minor nor be enforced against
him. The contract was for the purchase of immovable property and the suit was by the

2
(1949) 75 IA 115.
3
ILR 1912(39) Cal. 232(PC).
minor for specific enforcement. The validity of the guardian’s consent, therefore,
should be considered only with reference to his legal powers.

A minor's contract being absolutely void, there can be no question of the specific
performance of such contract. But a contract entered into by guardian or manager on
minor's behalf can be specifically enforced if (a) The contract is within the authority of
the guardian or manager. (b) It is for the benefit of the minor.

NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST A MINOR

Where a minor by misrepresenting his age has induced the other party to enter into a
contract with him, he cannot be made liable for the contract. There can be no estoppel
against a minor. It means he is not estopped from pleading his infancy in order to
avoid a contract.

The question of estoppel came before the courts in the case of Mohiri Bibee v.
Dharmadas Ghose.

In the case of Vaikuntarama Pillai v Authimoolam Chettair, the Madras High Court
also held that the law of estoppel cannot overrule this provision to make the minor
liable to pay any debts.

Explanation: There can be no estoppel against a minor. So, even when a minor
misrepresents that he is a major and thereby induces another to enter into a contract, it
cannot be enforced against him as he is not estopped from setting up his minority as a
defence.

However, he will be compelled to make restitution of the benefits received by him. If

the minor is in possession of any property obtained by the fraud, he can be compelled to
restore it to its former owner. If the benefit consisted of the receipt of money, there was
a difference of opinion whether it could be restored or not.